Direct Evidence: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "{{atLz|" to "{{atL|" Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[fr:Preuve_directe]] | |||
{{Currency2|January|2016}} | |||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderEvidence}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderEvidence}} | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
{{seealso|Circumstantial Evidence}} | |||
Direct evidence is evidence that is put forward to directly establish a fact which resolves a matter at issue. No inferences of fact need to be drawn to resolve the matter at issue. A first-hand eyewitness testifying to seeing a criminal offence take place is the most obvious example of direct evidence. | Direct evidence is evidence that is put forward to directly establish a fact which resolves a matter at issue. No inferences of fact need to be drawn to resolve the matter at issue. A first-hand eyewitness testifying to seeing a criminal offence take place is the most obvious example of direct evidence. | ||
Direct evidence is evidence, if believed, "resolves a matter in issue" | Direct evidence is evidence, if believed, "resolves a matter in issue."<ref> | ||
see Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (1998), at par. 8.0 (“[d]irect evidence is evidence which, if believed, resolves a matter in issue”)<br> | see Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (1998), at par. 8.0 (“[d]irect evidence is evidence which, if believed, resolves a matter in issue”)<br> | ||
McCormick on Evidence [page840] (5th ed. 1999){{atp|641}}<br> | McCormick on Evidence [page840] (5th ed. 1999){{atp|641}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
it is testimony on "the precise face which is the subject of the issue in trial" | it is testimony on "the precise face which is the subject of the issue in trial."<ref> | ||
J. Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd ed. 1999), at par. 2.74 (direct evidence is witness testimony as to “the precise fact which is the subject of the issue on trial”) | J. Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, "The Law of Evidence in Canada" (2nd ed. 1999), at par. 2.74 (direct evidence is witness testimony as to “the precise fact which is the subject of the issue on trial”) | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
it is for the trier-of-fact to determine how far the evidence may be believed.<ref> | it is for the trier-of-fact to determine how far the evidence may be believed.<ref> | ||
see United States of | see {{CanLIIRPC|United States of America v Shephard|1mx51|1976 CanLII 8 (SCC)|[1977] 2 SCR 1067}}{{perSCC|Ritchie J}}{{atps|1086-87}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Arcuri|51xv|2001 SCC 54 (CanLII)|[2001] 2 SCR 828}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}{{atL|51xv|22}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:26, 5 September 2024
| This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2016. (Rev. # 96361) |
- < Evidence
General Principles
Direct evidence is evidence that is put forward to directly establish a fact which resolves a matter at issue. No inferences of fact need to be drawn to resolve the matter at issue. A first-hand eyewitness testifying to seeing a criminal offence take place is the most obvious example of direct evidence.
Direct evidence is evidence, if believed, "resolves a matter in issue."[1] it is testimony on "the precise face which is the subject of the issue in trial."[2]
it is for the trier-of-fact to determine how far the evidence may be believed.[3]
- ↑
see Watt’s Manual of Criminal Evidence (1998), at par. 8.0 (“[d]irect evidence is evidence which, if believed, resolves a matter in issue”)
McCormick on Evidence [page840] (5th ed. 1999), at p. 641
- ↑ J. Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, "The Law of Evidence in Canada" (2nd ed. 1999), at par. 2.74 (direct evidence is witness testimony as to “the precise fact which is the subject of the issue on trial”)
- ↑
see United States of America v Shephard, 1976 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1977] 2 SCR 1067, per Ritchie J, at pp. 1086-87
R v Arcuri, 2001 SCC 54 (CanLII), [2001] 2 SCR 828, per McLachlin CJ, at para 22